SHRI SURESH ALLADA, AUSTRALIA V. ITO, INTNL TAXATION WARD -i(i), CHENNAI

ITA 781/CHNY/2022

AI Insights

The case involves two appeals by Shri Suresh Allada and Shri Ramesh Allada, co-owners of a property sold in Chennai, against the assessments made by the Income Tax Officer, which were confirmed by the Dispute Resolution Panel. The primary issues revolved around the rejection of claims for cost of improvement, denial of indexation benefit from 01.04.2001, and denial of exemption under Section 54 for reinvestment in property. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's arguments regarding the cost of acquisition and indexation, directing the Assessing Officer to revise the calculations accordingly. Furthermore, the Tribunal acknowledged the exceptional circumstances due to the COVID-19 pandemic that affected the registration of the new property, thus allowing the exemption under Section 54.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 134738 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-04-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 24-04-2023
• Assessment Year: 2019-2020
• Appeal Filed On: 13-09-2022
• Other Referred Cases: CIT v. Shanthi Chandran, CIT v. S. Krishnamurthy
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: . PANEL
• Keywords: Capital asset; Cost of acquisition; Fair market value; Capital Gains
• Section: 143(3); 143(2); 48; 13

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ यायपीठ, चे ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI ी महावीर सह, उपा य एवं ी मनोज कुमार अ वाल, लेखा सद य के सम BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENTAND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.781/Chny/2022 िनधा रण वष /Assessment Years: 2019-20 Shri Suresh Allada, 2, Wildcherry Street, Maribyrnong, Victoria -3032. Australia. Vs. The Income Tax Officer, International Taxation Ward-1(1), Chennai. [PAN: BQPPA-1954-B] ( अपीलाथ /Appellant) ( यथ /Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.782/Chny/2022 िनधा रण वष /Assessment Years: 2019-20 Shri Ramesh Allada, 502, Roling Brook Ln Cedar Park, Texas, United States of America. Vs. The Income Tax Officer, International Taxation Ward-1(1), Chennai. [PAN: BXWPA-5420-N] ( अपीलाथ /Appellant) ( यथ /Respondent) अपीलाथ क ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri N. Arjunraj, C.A यथ क ओर से /Respondent by : Shri R. Mohan Reddy, CIT & Shri AR. V. Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT सुनवाई क तारीख/Date of Hearing : 25.04.2023 घोषणा क तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 25.04.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh, Vice President : These two appeals by, two different assessees, are arising out of assessments framed by Income Tax Officer, International Taxation ITA Nos.781 & 782/Chny/2022 :- 2 -: Ward-1(1), Chennai u/s. 143(3) r/w s. 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’) vide orders dated 22.07.2022 & 29.07.2022, respectively, with the directions of Dispute Resolution Panel-2, Bengaluru, dated 22.06.2022 passed u/s. 144C(5) of the Act, both for the Assessment Years 2019-20. 2. The facts and circumstances of both the appeals of assessees, being co-owner of property sold, issues raised and facts of the appeals are identical as the issue is arising out of the same transaction and hence, we deal with the issues and we will take the facts from ITA No.781/Chny/2022 in the case of Shri Suresh Allada. 3. At the time of hearing, the Ld. counsel for the assessee pointed out to grounds raised by the assessee i.e., Grounds No.1 to 19 and stated that the following issues are raised In these grounds: I) Rejection of claim of cost of improvement by A.O and DRP. For this, the assessee has raised ground Nos.3 to 5, which are argumentative and hence, need not be reproduced. II) The next issue is computing capital gains by denying indexation benefit from 01.04.2001. For this, the assessee has raised following Ground Nos.6 to 8, which are argumentative and hence, need not be reproduced. III) The next issue is while computing capital gains denial of adoption of guideline value as on 01.04.2001 as the cost of acquisition. For this, the assessee has raised following Ground Nos.9 to 11, which are argumentative and hence, need not be reproduced. ITA Nos.781 & 782/Chny/2022 :- 3 -: IV) The last issue in this appeal (only in this appeal and not other co-owners case) is as regards to denial of claim of exemption u/s. 54 of the Act being amount invested in purchase of property not completed within stipulated period of three years. For this, the assessee has raised Ground Nos.12 to 15, which are argumentative and hence, need not be reproduced. The Ground Nos.1, 2 and Ground Nos.16 to 19 are general in nature as contended by Ld. counsel for the assessee and not pressed and hence, dismissed as not pressed. Now, we deal this appeal in issue wise. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee, Shri Suresh Allada is an individual and NRI. He filed his return of income for the relevant A.Y 2019-20 admitting an income of Rs. 49,68,858/- from capital gains arising out of the sale of immovable property at Plot No.1246, 13 th Main Road, Annanagar West, Chennai comprised in R.S No.1631(Old SurveyNo.16/2). The A.O selected the case for scrutiny and accordingly, notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act dated 31.03.2021 was issued. The A.O noted the fact that the assessee along with three other co-owners namely Shri Girish Allada, Shri Ramesh Allada and Smt. Triveni, sold the property situated at Plot No.1246, Anna Nagar, Chennai on 30.05.2018 for a total consideration of Rs. 7.80 Cr. This property was admeasuring 2 grounds and 200 Sq. ft. was originally purchased by Shri A. Joga Rao(father of the assessee) on 28.02.1980 ITA Nos.781 & 782/Chny/2022 :- 4 -: from Tamil Nadu Housing Board for a total consideration of Rs. 28,250/-. This property was acquired by the assessee by way of inheritance vide settlement deed dated 04.11.2013 No.5847/2013 settled by his father Shri A. Joga Rao. The said property was equally settled in the name of the assessee, Shri Girish Allada, Shri Ramesh Allada and Smt. Triveni in equal 1/4 th share for each of the co-owners. The assessee filed his return of income declaring income from Long Term Capital Gain arising out of sale of this property at Rs. 49,68,858/. For this, the assessee adopted the guideline value of the property at Rs. 1,360/- per Sq. ft. as on 01.04.2001 and thus, arrived at the cost of acquisition as on 01.04.2001 at Rs. 68,00,000/-. The assessee also claimed cost of improvement/cost of construction done during various years totaling to Rs. 10,00,000/- as under: Year Floor Sq. Ft. Cost 1982 GF 2055 1,38,291 1982 FF 1660 1,11,709 1993 SF 482 5,00,000 2000 Compound Wall -- 2,50,000 4.1. The assessee claimed brokerage paid at Rs. 15.60 Lakhs and after admitting the fair market value as on 01.04.2001 at Rs. 68 Lakhs and after indexing the same computed the indexed value as on the date of sale at Rs. 1,84,96,000/-. The assessee also indexed the cost of construction/cost of improvement year wise and thereby index cost as on the date of sale at Rs. 27,20,000/-. The assessee then ITA Nos.781 & 782/Chny/2022 :- 5 -: computed the long term capital gain for all the co-owners at Rs.5,52,24,000/- and assessees 1/4 th share comes to Rs. 1,38,06,000/-. The assessee claimed exemption u/s 54 of the Act being amount invested in purchase of house property amounting to Rs. 88.20 Lakhs and thereby, the assessee declared net long term capital gain of Rs. 49.86 Lakhs. 4.2. The A.O while completing assessment, first of all, disallowed the claim of cost of construction and improvements amounting to Rs. 10 Lakhs invested during various years as under: Year Floor Sq. Ft. Cost 1982 GF 2055 1,38,291 1982 FF 1660 1,11,709 1993 SF 482 5,00,000 2000 Compound Wall -- 2,50,000 4.3. The A.O noted that the assessee has not filed any evidence or proof for expenses and hence, the A.O denied the claim of exemption for the purpose of computation of long term capital gain and indexation of the same thereof. Aggrieved, the assessee raised objections before DRP and the DRP also confirmed the action of the A.O. 5. The DRP while rejecting the claim of the assessee observed in para 3.2 to 3.3 as under: 3.2 During the course of DRP proceedings, assessee has given submissions dated 11.03.2022 regarding the rejection of claim of cost of improvement by the Assessing Officer. The contention of assessee is that the fact of existence of building is not controverted ITA Nos.781 & 782/Chny/2022 :- 6 -: and in the sale deed dated 29.05.2018, the building was valued by the competent authority/stamp duty authority at Rs.3,78,00,000/-. The cost of improvement claimed in the return of income at Rs.7,00,000/- for 4197 sqft comes out to Rs.167 per sqf for creating and maintaining the building for nearly four decades. Therefore, assessee pleaded that the proposed rejection of the said claim by the AO is not correct and completely opposed to the principles of fairness in taxation. 3.3 Having considered the submissions of the assesee, this panel finds that assessee is merely giving vague reasons instead of giving proof of expenses claimed along with documentary evidence. Hence, this panel is of opinion that the assessee has miserably failed to substantiate his claim for cost of improvement claimed. Hence, this panel upheld the action of the AO and rejects the claim of the assessee.” 6. We have heard the rival contentions on the first issue and various materials available with us. As argued by Ld. counsel for the assessee that there exists a building in the sale deed registered on 29.05.2018 and building was valued by stamp valuation authority at Rs. 3.78 Cr. The cost of improvement claimed by assessee in the return of income was at Rs. 7,00,000/- for 4197 Sq. ft. which comes to Rs. 167 per Sq. ft. for construction and maintaining the building for nearly four decades. We have gone through the cost of improvements admitted by the assessee at Rs. 10,00,000/- i.e., in the year 1982 at Rs. 1,38,291/- for construction of ground floor, in the year 1982 Rs. 1,11,709/- for construction of first floor, in the year 1993 cost of Rs. 5,00,000/- for construction of second floor and in the year 2000 cost of Rs. 2,50,000/- for construction of compound wall. Thereby, the total cost of construction/cost of improvement was declared by the ITA Nos.781 & 782/Chny/2022 :- 7 -: assessee at Rs. 10,00,000/-. We admit that there exists building as per sale deed which is valued by stamp duty authority at Rs. 3.78 Cr. Hence, we cannot doubt the expenses of building as claimed by the assessee. We find the claim of the assessee of Rs. 10,00,000/- invested in cost of construction/cost of improvement as originally claimed and we allow the same. 7. As regards to third issue, the facts are that the property sold by the assessee i.e, Plot No.1246, Anna Nagar, Chennai was acquired by the assessee by way of inheritance settled by his father Shri A. Joga Rao on 04.11.2013 vide settlement deed No.5847/2013. By virtue of which the assessee became 1/4 th co-owner of this property. This property was acquired by assessee’s father Shri A. Joga Rao, as originally purchased from Tamil Nadu Housing Board on 28.02.1980 for a sum of Rs. 28,215/-. The A.O while computing the long term capital gain has taken the cost of acquisition of this land at Rs.28,125/- and indexed the same from the date when the assessee acquired this property by way of inheritance settled by his father in his favour on 04.11.2013. The A.O took the value for indexation purpose as on 04.11.2013 and indexed the cost of acquisition at Rs.35,795/- and adopted the capital gain at Rs. 7,79,64,205/-. Aggrieved, the assessee ITA Nos.781 & 782/Chny/2022 :- 8 -: raised objection before DRP, the DRP rejected the objection of the assessee by observing in Para 5.1 to 5.3 as under: “5.1 Panel: During the course of DRP Proceedings, this panel has carefully considered and perused the submissions and objections of the assessee. The contention of the assessee is that AO at the para 11 of the Draft Assessment Order has adopted the cost of acquisition as Rs.28,2 1 5/- being amount paid by the assessee/objectors father/previous owner on 28.02.1980 as against the claim of guideline value as on 1.4.2001 at Rs. 1360 per sqft for total extent of 5000 sqft. 5.2 Assessee further stated that the option is provided to the taxpayer to adopt fair market value as on 01.04.200 l as against the original cost of acquisition prior to the said date and that option is admittedly exercised by the assesee while reporting the long term capital gains as part of return of income filed for the assessment year under consideration. The relevant provisions in expiation below section 55(2)(ac) of the Act vesting the option to the tax payer for adopting the fair market value as on 01.04.2001. 5.3 Having considered the submissions, this panel has examined the facts of the case and found that Assessing Officer has rightly re-computed the capital gains by disallowing the expenses and deduction claimed with respect to sale and giving benefit of indexation from 2013. Further, this panel found that AO has rightly denied the adoption of guideline value as on 01.04.2001as the cost of acquisition, because the property was settled to the assessee only on 04.11.2013. Accordingly, the indexation and guideline benefit shall be applicable only from 2013.” Aggrieved, the assessee came in appeal before the Tribunal. 7.1 We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case on this third issue. We have perused the material and noted that the admitted facts are that this property was acquired originally by assessee’s father Shri A. Joga Rao from Tamil Nadu Housing Board for a sum of Rs. 28,215/- on 28.02.1980. This property was settled by way of inheritance on the assessee along ITA Nos.781 & 782/Chny/2022 :- 9 -: with other three co-owners by assessee’s father Shri A. Joga Rao on 04.11.2013 vide settlement deed No.5847/2013. 7.2 In the given facts as argued by Ld. counsel for the assessee, Shri N. Arjunraj, C.A that in the case of inheritance the cost to the previous owner that has to be taken into account as the cost of acquisition of assessee’s share received consequent upon family settlement and not the amount as on the date of settlement deed. The Ld. counsel for the assessee stated that in the case of family settlement, it is the cost of the previous owner, on the date on which previous owner became only, is to be taken into account as the cost of acquisition upon family settlement and not the value as on the date of family settlement i.e., on 04.11.2013. The Ld. counsel for the assessee particularly referred to the provision of Section 49(1)(iii)(a) of the Act. The Ld. counsel for the assessee also relied on one CBDT Circular No.31 (LXXVII-5) D of 1962, dated 21.09.1962, which reads as under: “Capital gains tax property acquired by inheritance-Deduction of cost of acquisition of asset Cost to the previous owner-whether "previous owner" includes "previous owners"-Whether substitution of fair market value as on 1-1-1954 permissible."For the purposes of computation of capital gains under section 45 read with section 48, section 49 and section 55(2)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, a question has arisen as to how the cost of acquisition of an asset should be determined where it has been inherited by an assessee from a person who in turn had inherited it from another person. 2. Under clause (ii) of sub-section (2) of section 55 of the Income- tax Act, 1961, where the capital asset became the property of the assessee by any of the modes specified in section 49 including inheritance, and the capital asset became the property of the ITA Nos.781 & 782/Chny/2022 :- 10 -: previous owner before the 1-1-1954, "cost of acquisition" means the cost of the capital asset to the previous owner or fair market value of the asset on 1-1-1954, at the option of the assessee. It has been argued that in a case of successsive inheritance (of the type referred to in the preceding paragraph) the provisions of section 55(2)(ii) would not apply and that these provisions would apply only to a case where some actual cost was incurred by the immediate previous owner. 3. The Board have, however, been advised that the above view is not correct. Where section 49 applies, the provisions of section 55(2) also become applicable and in the context the expression "the previous owner" need not be taken to mean merely the immediately preceding owner but may be construed as including "the previous owners". In such a case where an assessee acquires an asset by inheritance from a person who in turn had also acquired the same by inheritance before the 1-1-1954, therefore, the assessee has the option of substituting the fair market value of the asset as at 1-1-1954, in place of the original cost, if it is to his advantage. "[Circular No.31 (LXXVII-5) D of 1962, dated 21-9-1962.]” 7.3 The Ld. counsel for the assessee also relied on to the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Shanthi Chandran [2000] 241 ITR 371,373 (Mad.) and CIT v. S. Krishnamurthy [1985] 152 ITR 669, 673-74 (Mad.) 7.4 On the other hand, the Ld. CIT-D.R and Sr. D.R relied on the assessment order and that of the DRP. 7.5 We noted that the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Shanthi Chandran, supra, has considered the identical issue and has held that the family settlement in this context is analogous to a partition as envisaged in Section 49(1)(i) of the Act. It was held as even in the case of family settlement, it is the cost of the previous ITA Nos.781 & 782/Chny/2022 :- 11 -: owner that is to be taken into account as cost of acquisition of shares received consequent upon family settlement and not the amount mentioned in the family settlement deed. We noted that further Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. S. Krishnamurthy, supra, has held interpreting the provision of Section 49(1)(iii)(a) of the Act that speaks of succession, inheritance or devolution. In view of the above position, we are of the view that it is the cost of acquisition of the assessee will be of cost of acquisition by his father on 28.02.1980 at Rs. 28,215/-. But, by virtue of second Proviso to Section 48 of the Act and determination of holding period I.e., inclusion will be according to clause(b) of Explanation 1 to Section 2(42A) of the Act, the indexed cost of acquisition is to be taken as the year beginning as on 01.04.2001 as the first year in which the asset was held by the assessee. The relevant provision of Section 48 of the Act reads as under: “Provided further that where long-term capital gain arises from the transfer of a long-term capital asset, other than capital gain arising to a non-resident from the transfer of shares in, or debentures of, an Indian company referred to in the first proviso, the provisions of clause (ii) shall have effect as if for the words "cost of acquisition and "cost of any improvement", the words "indexed cost of acquisition" and “indexed cost of any improvement" had respectively been substituted:” 7.6 And the indexed cost of acquisition as explained by Section 48 in Explanation (iii) as as under: ITA Nos.781 & 782/Chny/2022 :- 12 -: (iii) "indexed cost of acquisition" means an amount which bears to the cost of acquisition the same proportion as Cost Inflation Index for the year in which the asset is transferred bears to the Cost Inflation Index for the first year in which the asset was held by the assessee or for the year beginning on the [1st day of April, 2001], whichever is later” 7.7 The A.O has to determine the fair market value as on 01.04.2001 and thereafter, he has to allow indexation benefit to the assessee in term of Section 48, second Proviso and Explanation (iii) of the Act. We direct the A.O to adopt the cost of acquisition as fair market value in the present case of the assessee as on 01.04.2001 as the assessee has adopted this fair market value at Rs. 1,360/- per Sq. ft. and for this, the assessee has taken the basis. The indexation benefit from 01.04.2001 is available to the assessee in view of Section 2(42A) more particularly Explanation 1(b), which reads as under: “b) in case of a capital asset which become the property of the assessee in the circumstances mentioned in sub-section 1 of section 49 there shall be included the period for which the asset was held by the previous owner referred to in the said section.” 7.8 In view of the above, we direct the A.O to adopt the guideline value on as 01.04.2001 as the cost of acquisition and thereby, given index benefit accordingly. We direct the A.O accordingly. 8. Coming to the second issue, we direct the A.O to allow the indexation benefit to the cost of improvement as on the date of 01.04.2001 in term of the decision given above by taking the cost of construction/cost of improvement at Rs. 10,00,000/- and taking fair ITA Nos.781 & 782/Chny/2022 :- 13 -: market value as on 01.04.2001 of the same and allow index accordingly. We direct the A.O accordingly. 9. The 4 th issue in this appeal of the assessee is as regard to denial of claim of tax exemption u/s. 54 of the Act in regard to assessee invested a sum of Rs. 88.20 Lakhs in the purchase of house property. The assessee submitted agreement dated 23.10.2018 entered with one Shri Suraj Dutta and Mrs. Sanjan Suraj Morajkar. The assessee also submitted proper proof of payment made to the builder M/s. Sun Estates. The assessee also submitted a copy of completion certificate as per the project completion and handing over on 01.04.2022. The objection of A.O was that the property was not registered within the stipulated period of three years as mandated by provisions of Section 54 of the Act. The DRP also rejected the claim of the assessee by observing in para 6.2 to 6.4 as under: “6.2 Having considered the submissions, this panel has examined the tax exemptions claimed under section 54 by assessee. Having examined the facts, this panel found that assessee submitted copy of agreement dated 23.10.2018 alongwith project completion certificate. As per the project completion certificate this property was handed over 01.04.2022 which is beyond stipulated time of 3 years as mandated in the Act. Since the property is not registered within stipulated time, the transfer is not complete within the meaning of transfer of property act and ineligible to claim deduction under section 54. 6.3 During the course of DRP proceedings, assessee stated that delay in getting completion certificate and handing over of the flat (as at 01.4.2022) is attributable to the covid 19 related lockdown and restrictions. Thus, it is clear that assessee admitted that there ITA Nos.781 & 782/Chny/2022 :- 14 -: is delay in getting completion certificate and handing over of the flat within stipulated time. 6.4 In view of the above discussion, this panel is of the considered view that Assessing Officer has rightly disallowed the tax exemptions claimed under section 54 of the Act. Accordingly, the ground of objection of the assessee is therefore rejected.” 9.1 We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. Admittedly, the assessee sold the property vide agreement entered with one Shri Suraj Dutta and Mrs. Sanjan Suraj Morajkar dated 23.10.2018. We noted that as per project completion certificate, this property was handed over as on 01.04.2022 which is admittedly beyond three years from the date of sale, but assessee’s contention was that this delay in getting completion certificate and handed over of possession of plot is attributable due to Covid-19 related lockdown and restrictions. The Ld. counsel for the assessee filed a copy of Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order in SMW(C) No.3 of 2020 dated 23.03.2020 extended the limitation for all action at the hand of any authorities or individuals and subsequently in M.A. No.665 of 2021 had restored the order dated 23.03.2020, in continuation of order dated 23.09.2021. The relevant portions of the order dated 10.01.2022 are extracted herewith for your perusal. I. The order dated 23.03.2020 is restored and in continuation of the subsequent orders dated 08.03.2021, 27.04.2021 and 23.09.2021, it is directed that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall stand excluded for the purposes of limitation as may be prescribed under any general or special laws in respect of all judicial or quasijudicial proceedings. ITA Nos.781 & 782/Chny/2022 :- 15 -: II. Consequently, the balance period of limitation remaining as on 03.10.2021, if any, shall become available with effect from 01.03.2022. III. In cases where the limitation would have expired during the period between 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022, notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 01.03.2022. In the event the actual balance period of limitation remaining, with effect from 01.03.2022 is greater than 90 days, that longer period shall apply. 9.2 The assessee contended that further the Hon’ble Supreme Court has extended the limitation order up to 30.05.2022 and the delay in filing of any appeal or anything or action would be done up to 30.05.2022. It means that this delay has to be excluded for the purpose of computation of any limitation. 9.3 In view of the above, and the fact that the assessee has made payments to the builder in 2018 & 2019 only and the receipts are enclosed at Page Nos.200-204 of assessee’s paper book, we are of the view that the assessee has complied with the provisions of the Act and hence, he is entitled for the claim exemptions u/s. 54 of the Act. 9.4 In term of the above, the appeal is allowed accordingly. The A.O is directed accordingly. 10. Being similar facts are in ITA No.782/Chny/2022 taking a consistent view, we also allow this appeal accordingly. ITA Nos.781 & 782/Chny/2022 :- 16 -: 11. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 25 th April, 2023. Sd/- Sd/- (मनोज मनोजमनोज मनोज कुमार कुमारकुमार कुमार अ वाल अ वालअ वाल अ वाल) (Manoj Kumar Aggarwal) लेखा लेखालेखा लेखा सद सदसद सद य य य य /Accountant Member (महावीर िसंह) (Mahavir Singh) उपा / Vice President चे ई/Chennai, दनांक/Dated: 25 th April, 2023. EDN/- आदेश क ितिलिप अ ेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ /Appellant 2. थ /Respondent 3. आयकर आयु /CIT 4. िवभागीय ितिनिध/DR 5. गाड फाईल/GF